Joe, I'm with you right up until the last paragraph. I expected to hear
some more detail about pixel/grain size and dynamic range and the
characteristics of a digital imaging devices that would be required. to
meet various imaging needs. Everything you say is true until you seem to
write off a whole technology based on a really poor example of it.
Your example doesn't persuade me for the simple reason that I have many
beautiful, '3-D' looking 8x10" 'prints' on my wall from 2.1 mp digital
camera images. People don't tend to ask what kind of pictures or prints
they are. Rather, they react to the subjects in an immediate way that
transcends details of the particular medium. They are from the tiniest
of 2.1 mp cameras with a pipsqueak flash (and some are even cropped),
but gorgeous nonetheless. Eyes and water sparkle, faces look 'real',
flowers are beautiful, etc. etc. An Epson 1280 helps, but can't print
what isn't there.
Film doesn't get judged as amedium based on disposible cameras (some of
which are pretty good) and 1-hour processing.
Love my OMs, but tell the truth.
Moose
Joe Gwinn wrote:
A few weeks ago, there was a discussion of the relative merits of film versus
digital, with the metric of goodness being how large an enlargement each format
would support, and it appears that visual sharpness was the issue.
<snip>
At my company XMAS party, somebody was using a 2.1-megapixel point&shoot with a
built-in pipsqueak flash. The photos were terrible -- looked flat and cartoonish,
especially faces. Part of this was due to the photo exceeding the gamut (color
range) of the inkjet color printer, but the photos weren't that great on the screen
either. They would have been far better off with a film camera, even a $10
disposable camera.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|